Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In RiseandShine v. PepsiCo, Judge Schofield granted PepsiCo’s sealing application and closed the related motion.
RiseandShine Corporation, PepsiCo, Inc., their listed counsel, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed letter.
What happened
In RiseandShine Corporation v. PepsiCo, Inc., PepsiCo asked the court to seal a letter brief seeking permission to file a summary-judgment motion. The brief described and cited information that RiseandShine had designated as confidential.
PepsiCo said the letter included information from a 2019 letter that RiseandShine had marked for outside attorneys’ eyes only and later agreed to designate as confidential. PepsiCo said it did not believe the designation was proper but sought sealing because RiseandShine wanted the information kept from public view.
Judge Lorna Schofield granted PepsiCo’s sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in PepsiCo’s letter. The court ordered the letter at Docket No. 340 sealed, limited access to the counsel listed in the appendix, and directed the Clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 339.
The detailed version
- Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06324
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 25, 2022
Background
PepsiCo filed a letter motion asking permission to file under seal its pre-motion letter brief requesting leave to file a motion for summary judgment. The brief described and cited documents designated under the parties’ protective order or otherwise submitted for sealing. PepsiCo specifically identified a 2019 letter that RiseandShine had designated as “Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and later agreed to downgrade to “Confidential.” PepsiCo stated that it did not believe the document was properly designated but sought to file the information under seal because RiseandShine had sought to keep it sealed.
Legal standard
The court’s order adopted the standard described in PepsiCo’s letter: the public generally has a common-law right to access court records, but that right is not absolute. Courts balance the public’s interest in access against privacy interests and may seal documents to prevent the release of sensitive business information that could harm a company’s ability to compete.
Ruling
The court granted PepsiCo’s sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in PepsiCo’s letter. It ordered the letter at Docket No. 340 sealed, with access limited to the parties’ counsel listed in the appendix. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 339. The order concerned filing access and did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or PepsiCo’s anticipated summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.